search_documents_tool

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the core behavior—searching documentation and filtering by library and version—which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose details such as matching behavior, result limits, error conditions, or whether only snippets are returned. Adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise at three sentences and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds information about when or how to use the tool. The minor grammar issue in 'Always used this tool' slightly detracts from polish, but the structure is effective.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that an output schema exists, return details need not be in the description. The description covers the tool's purpose, usage trigger, and required pre-step via list_libraries_tool. It could be more complete by mentioning get_full_content_tool as the logical follow-up for retrieving full documents, but nothing essential to invoking search_documents_tool correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify library_name and version by directing the agent to list_libraries_tool to see valid values and to filter by them. However, it gives no guidance on what constitutes a valid query or how the query is matched, leaving one of the three parameters semantically under-specified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the official documentation knowledge base.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which list libraries and retrieve full content. It also frames the tool's purpose as answering user questions, making its role unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says to use this tool when a question might be answered or confirmed from documentation, and it instructs the agent to call list_libraries_tool first to discover available libraries and versions. It does not mention when to prefer get_full_content_tool or when not to use the tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.